[TO THE EDITOR OP THE "SPECTATOR."'
shall be glad of the opportunity to point out that the distinction attempted to be drawn between the taxation of food and the taxation of raw material is, so far as all manu- facturing is concerned, quite imaginary. If the price of food is artificially raised, factory workers will demand an increase in wages, and Mr.i Chamberlain says they will get it. To the manufacturer this is exactly the same thing as if he had paid more for raw material If it costs him more to produce a finished article, it makes no matter to him whether he pays the money in wages or in a higher price for his cotton or wool. Economically, therefore, the food of the worker is as much " raw material " as is the staple in which he works. To demonstrate this would appear to be very much like giving instruction in a village school were it not that many Members, for the guidance of their constituents, persist in making a distinction which does not exist. I will not at present trouble you further, but so many spurious coins in argument are being put into circulation that it seems desirable to nail each one to the counter when
presented.—I am, Sir, &c., Jas. RALPH. 5 Kingswood Road, Prestwich, Manchester.
Previous page
